Having been demolished 4-0 by Brentford at the weekend the ire of Manchester United fans has once again been directed at their ownership.
Goals from Josh Dasilva, Mathias Jensen, Ben Mee and Bryan Mbeumo piled on the misery for United fans in the West London sunshine on Saturday, the pre-season bounce that new boss Erik ten Hag had seemed to deliver evaporating just 180 minutes into this Premier League season. The loss to Brentford comes on the back of a chastening defeat at the hands of Brighton & Hove Albion a week earlier.
The fallout from the weekend poured more petrol on an already raging inferno at the Old Trafford club, with former United player turned pundit Gary Neville using his Sky Sports platform to call out the ownership for the way that they have acted as custodians of the football club ever since they acquired it via a leveraged buyout back in 2005.
READ MORE: Ex-Liverpool sporting director Michael Edwards 'turns down' Chelsea job offer as reasons emerge
READ MORE: Full Liverpool squad available for Crystal Palace as several set to miss Anfield clash
The Glazer family have been the ultimate example of absentee ownership in the Premier League era. They loaded debt onto a debt free club, and through interest, refinancing fees and other obligations it has ended up costing the club over £1bn. That hasn't stopped the Glazer family from reaping the financial rewards, though, the latest divided payment earlier this year standing at £11m, with the average annual payment to the US owners above the £15m mark.
There is understandable outrage among United fans and the burning through of four permanent managers and one interim since Sir Alex Ferguson retired in 2013 points to structural failings at a club that were once the Premier League kings.
Speaking on Sky Sports, Neville said: "When a business is failing and it's not performing, it is the owners of that business [who are to blame]. It is really simple. It is failing miserably. They took about £24m out of the club two months ago and they have now got a decrepit, rotting stadium, which is, to be fair, second-rate, when it used to be the best in the world 15-20 years ago. You have got a football club where they haven't got a clue. They have bankers in charge of the football club, not making football decisions. They have not appointed a sporting director.
"The only money that has been spent on players at United is the money that the club has generated or it has borrowed. It does not come from the family, so let's get this out of our heads that the Glazer family is putting money in every year, just like Roman Abramovich did, like the Saudi Arabians are doing at Newcastle, like Sheikh Mansour has done at Manchester City, who put their hands in their pockets and spend on players. They have not done that; they have borrowed and have used the revenue that the club has generated through its incredible fanbase and great commercial operation. That is what happens."
In the period of time between Fenway Sports Group taking over at Liverpool in 2010 to now the change at the Reds has been night and day. From a club that stood on the brink of administration and were light years behind on the pitch, the arrival of Jurgen Klopp in 2015 was to kick start a footballing revolution at Anfield, one that would make the Reds Champions League winners and end their 30-year search for an English league title. The Reds had identified Klopp as the man to deliver what they wanted, while Manchester City had bided their time to eventually land Pep Guardiola to lead their charge, the man they had long courted.
In an era where Manchester City, fuelled by Sheikh Mansour's billions, have been able to pull away from the biggest clubs, Liverpool have been the only ones to keep pace.
Neville's comments around ownership at United are completely valid. The Glazers paid for the club in the main by loading it with debt, they then paid themselves dividends annually. They didn't need it to be the best, they needed it to remain profitable, which it has continued to do through their tenure thanks to the huge commercial deals that were inked that traded off the historic success and the global reach that the football club has.
But to use the ownership of Abramovich at Chelsea, Mansour at Man City and the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund at Newcastle United as examples seems to be pouring energy in the wrong direction. Abramovich's ownership of Chelsea changed the football landscape in England, and not necessarily for the better. He was a benefactor more than an owner and the dangers that the club faced after he was forced to sell during the summer highlighted just how indebted they were to his philanthropic nature, there wasn't a business that underpinned the spend to such a degree.
Manchester City is similar, both they and Chelsea spent heavily to launch themselves forward at a time before Financial Fair Play. City were savvy, they invested in not only players but infrastructure, meaning that they now have revenue streams to back up their spend annually. For PIF at Newcastle, allegations of it being a purchase to launder the reputation of Saudi Arabia globally won't go away, and while they have spent on players they had the wriggle room to do so within current FFP rules. They have also committed to spending on the club's infrastructure.
But it is the suggestion that owners spending their own money as being some kind of marker for what makes them good owners that is curious. Football clubs are, as much as the term may be unpalatable, businesses. Without a strong business to underpin it all then there are no trophies. We have just had a review into the sustainability of football and extolling the virtues of whose personal pockets are deepest goes against the grain in that respect. Football clubs moving forward will need to make those moves towards being financially sustainable, and the profit that a club makes should be what finances their continued investment, with additional spend on things like infrastructure development arriving through other means, whether that be owner or third party loans.
Manchester United have a higher net spend on transfers than all of their rivals over the past five years, close on £500m and some £300m more than Liverpool, while their wage bill stands at the third highest in the Premier League. Money has been available for signings but there has been little in the way of value delivered from those additions on the pitch.
FSG have made numerous missteps at Liverpool and haven't been perfect custodians by any stretch of the imagination. Their part in the European Super League plot, plans to furlough staff at the onset of the pandemic and the attempts to raise season ticket prices will all not be forgotten in a rush and they were forced into embarrassing climb downs on each one of those points after fan pressure.
There have, though, been stark differences in their approach to how to run a football club, both competitively and financially, with Manchester United.
The top brass at FSG, John Henry and Tom Werner et al, haven't taken salaries out of the club, nor has FSG taken dividends out of the club's success. They have grown the value of the club from the £330m that they paid for it to over £3bn in 2022, and when the time comes for them to sell the club that will make a profit in that respect. But that is business, if owners are focused on building businesses where on-field success is a major part of the pull then it will usually feed positively into the product on the pitch.
When FSG arrived there was a realisation that success would not be achieved in the short term and investment was placed into avenues such as data and recruitment, something that has eventually underpinned success. When hiring managers the idea was to hire those who work within the parameters of a pre-determined strategy, and that is why they were so keen to bring in Klopp in 2015.
United have not done that. They allowed Ferguson to almost hand pick his successor, they then went for the biggest names on the market before circling back to the old 'fan favourite' appointment designed to appease the angst among supporters. Now they are on to the edgy choice, someone seen as the man to shake up the system and breathe new life into the football club. It has not started well.
Old Trafford now resembles some kind of relic of English football, allowed to fall into a crumbling shell of a former fortress. There has been no investment in the stadium, no attempts to bring it into the modern era. Tottenham Hotspur have bet their future success on their new stadium backing up what they want to achieve on the pitch, while Liverpool have invested in the Main Stand and Anfield Road developments to maintain Anfield's lustre and maximise revenue streams that help to pay for players and their ever-increasing wages. The Main Stand development was funded by an inter-company loan from FSG that Liverpool have only had to pay a fraction back thus far. It is an investment in growing the business.
Manchester United not being backed in the transfer market is a fallacy, they absolutely have. What they haven't had is owners who have tried to structure a business to succeed on both fronts. They have implemented no strategy other than to continue to make money for shareholders and themselves, while they have continued to be reactionary and employ a succession of the wrong people.
They are now light years behind Liverpool and Manchester City. They have traded on the Manchester United brand and tried to get every last drop out of it. Liverpool were in that position for a period and fell behind. The investment in people, strategy and business building has seen them surpass United on almost every level now. But it is a business plan where success on the pitch is required to continue to grow the business off it, something that has to go hand in hand.
FSG have also been smart in bringing in outside expertise and capital. In March 2021 they sold 11 per cent of their overall FSG empire to RedBird Capital Partners, a New York-based private equity firm, to allow them the have the capital to press on with projects across the business, including in Liverpool. It also gave them the expertise within the business of major industry professionals with history and knowledge of how to scale sports businesses. It was a forward thinking move where certain facets of the deal will be seen more prominently in years to come.
For United and the Glazers they continue to live in the past while hoping that the future will continue to provide them with their own personal ATM machine.
Ed Woodward, Manchester United's former executive vice chairman once famously told investors that the club didn't need to win trophies to be commercially successful. They may find that idea challenged if they continue to ignore what those around them have done.
READ NEXT:
- Luis Diaz has clear next Liverpool task as Jurgen Klopp sets Sadio Mane challenge
- Michael Owen dreaded Mohamed Salah goal as three Liverpool legends set for disappointment
- Jamie Carragher and Graeme Souness agree on how Chelsea could challenge Liverpool in title race
- Paul Merson and Chris Sutton make same Darwin Nunez point as they predict Liverpool v Crystal Palace
'When you look' - Patrick Vieira gives honest Darwin Nunez verdict ahead of Liverpool clash
